5 ms·

As an attorney (this is not legal advice), I would like to know what law might be violated by publishing these videos. They're owned by the person who recorded

As an attorney (this is not legal advice), I would like to know what law might be violated by publishing these videos. They're owned by the person who recorded the video; and presumably they gave Ring a license to use them for such purposes. The subject of the video, as far as I can tell, has no rights that might be recognized in law. There's no privacy right, as there's no reasonable expectation of privacy under such circumstances. There's no right of publicity being violated AFAICT, as there's no "brand goodwill" in the person's likeness to misappropriate. So what, then?

goobynight 7y ago
Thank you for at least questioning this nonsense. Video recording law is probably the worst combination of misinformation and actually coming up in someone's life.
teh_klev 7y ago
Fortunately Amazon/Ring would get a rocket up their arse if they tried this in the UK (and presumably the rest of Europe covered by GDPR): https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/cctv/ https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/cctv/
non_sequitur 7y ago
GDPR?
DanBC 7y ago
Defamation seems the obvious one. Also, in Europe being in a public place doesn't mean you automatically lose your right to privacy.
gnicholas 7y ago
Former attorney here. I'd guess it would be a claim like defamation or false light. These laws aren't typically used in this way, but I could see them being applied here. For defamation, for example, the claim would be that by including someone's face in an advertisement about home security videos, Amazon is implying that the person pictured is someone whom you would not want snooping around your house because he's a criminal. This would tend to hurt that person's reputation, which is the legal test for defamation.
- throwawayatty 7y ago
  If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like "COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case. Second, there's no "false light" if the recording shows the plaintiff plainly performing a criminal act. Finally, a disclaimer of innocence until proven guilty would likely tend to negate such a defamation claim.
  - jjulius 7y ago
    >If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like "COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case. I haven't seen an episode of COPS in almost two decades, when I was a kid, but if I recall correctly, a lot of suspects faces on the show were blurred out so that they wouldn't be identified. I don't know if that is because they didn't sign a consent form from the show (or if the show even needed that), or what, but a lot of faces we're definitely censored.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      >I haven't seen an episode of COPS in almost two decades, when I was a kid, but if I recall correctly, a lot of suspects faces on the show were blurred out so that they wouldn't be identified Yup. Faces of suspects were often blurred. Victim/witnesses would also have their faces blurred sometimes, I assume they were offered some compensation in exchange for showing their face.
      - throwawayatty 7y ago
        This is out of an abundance of caution, not necessarily because the law requires it. This explains it: https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Cops-TV-show-need-to-get-signed-releases-from-arrestees https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Cops-TV-show-need-to-get-sign... I'm sure the attorneys at Ring have already been through this discussion to decide whether similar actions were warranted, and concluded otherwise. Also, a big difference between COPS and the instant case is that in the TV shows, law enforcement have already identified the suspect, while here, the suspect is at large. I think it would be difficult to convince a court that you were the intentional target of defamation when the defendant hasn't identified you yet.
ppseafield 7y ago
Perhaps defamation? If this person isn't actually guilty of their suspected crime, especially since no conviction has been made, couldn't this post ruin the person's reputation?
lojack 7y ago
Not a lawyer, but to me this sounds like libel to me. There's an implication that the people are committing a crime despite not being convicted. Doesn't sound like a clear cut case because it doesn't outright say they're a criminal. That said, I could be missing some of the nuances with these laws.
Nullabillity 7y ago
The actual question being asked in these cases isn't "Is this currently legal?" but "Should this be legal?".

goobynight 7y ago

Thank you for at least questioning this nonsense. Video recording law is probably the worst combination of misinformation and actually coming up in someone's life.

teh_klev 7y ago

Fortunately Amazon/Ring would get a rocket up their arse if they tried this in the UK (and presumably the rest of Europe covered by GDPR): https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/cctv/ https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/cctv/

non_sequitur 7y ago

GDPR?

DanBC 7y ago

Defamation seems the obvious one. Also, in Europe being in a public place doesn't mean you automatically lose your right to privacy.

gnicholas 7y ago

Former attorney here. I'd guess it would be a claim like defamation or false light. These laws aren't typically used in this way, but I could see them being applied here. For defamation, for example, the claim would be that by including someone's face in an advertisement about home security videos, Amazon is implying that the person pictured is someone whom you would not want snooping around your house because he's a criminal. This would tend to hurt that person's reputation, which is the legal test for defamation.

throwawayatty 7y ago
If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like "COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case. Second, there's no "false light" if the recording shows the plaintiff plainly performing a criminal act. Finally, a disclaimer of innocence until proven guilty would likely tend to negate such a defamation claim.
- jjulius 7y ago
  >If others similarly situated could prevail on similar theories, TV shows like "COPS" and the like wouldn't be possible. The fact that they've been successfully running for over 20 years suggests that this is not the case. I haven't seen an episode of COPS in almost two decades, when I was a kid, but if I recall correctly, a lot of suspects faces on the show were blurred out so that they wouldn't be identified. I don't know if that is because they didn't sign a consent form from the show (or if the show even needed that), or what, but a lot of faces we're definitely censored.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >I haven't seen an episode of COPS in almost two decades, when I was a kid, but if I recall correctly, a lot of suspects faces on the show were blurred out so that they wouldn't be identified Yup. Faces of suspects were often blurred. Victim/witnesses would also have their faces blurred sometimes, I assume they were offered some compensation in exchange for showing their face.
    - throwawayatty 7y ago
      This is out of an abundance of caution, not necessarily because the law requires it. This explains it: https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Cops-TV-show-need-to-get-signed-releases-from-arrestees https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Cops-TV-show-need-to-get-sign... I'm sure the attorneys at Ring have already been through this discussion to decide whether similar actions were warranted, and concluded otherwise. Also, a big difference between COPS and the instant case is that in the TV shows, law enforcement have already identified the suspect, while here, the suspect is at large. I think it would be difficult to convince a court that you were the intentional target of defamation when the defendant hasn't identified you yet.

ppseafield 7y ago

Perhaps defamation? If this person isn't actually guilty of their suspected crime, especially since no conviction has been made, couldn't this post ruin the person's reputation?

lojack 7y ago

Not a lawyer, but to me this sounds like libel to me. There's an implication that the people are committing a crime despite not being convicted. Doesn't sound like a clear cut case because it doesn't outright say they're a criminal. That said, I could be missing some of the nuances with these laws.

Nullabillity 7y ago

The actual question being asked in these cases isn't "Is this currently legal?" but "Should this be legal?".